Poll: Assuming that you are alive 2 years after the Zombie Apocolypse or Nuclear Apocolypse or Both?
- Thread starter Mr. Tibbles
- Start date
Nukes, because I believe playing lots of Fallout 3 has prepared me for survival in a nuclear wasteland
Both. Just because doing things in half measures would get boring. Now I have irradiated zombies after me. 
zombies.
unless the nukes creating something resembling STALKER.
Zombie apocalypse would be easy to survive. You would need to find an easily defended location, which can be self sufficent, and hidden away, so the ineveitable bandits and raiders and looters wouldnt find you. a military base is a wonderful example, where hundreds could hole up.
just read the zombie survival guide, chapter "living in an undead world"
unless the nukes creating something resembling STALKER.
Zombie apocalypse would be easy to survive. You would need to find an easily defended location, which can be self sufficent, and hidden away, so the ineveitable bandits and raiders and looters wouldnt find you. a military base is a wonderful example, where hundreds could hole up.
just read the zombie survival guide, chapter "living in an undead world"
Calm down 'twas a joke. Besides The Glowing Ones are hard to kill anyway so if I could kill them the normal zombies would be easier to killand eat afterwards. Though The Glowing Ones would make excellent night lights I must admit.Snoopster said:
P.S: If my hunger reaches certain levels then yes I would eat zombie if they were cooked.
I'd defiantly prefer zombies at least you can hide/fight/run where they are concerned radioactive fallout tends to just give you cancer indiscriminately.
zombies you can fight radiation just kills you unfortunately....
to survive i would armour plate a bus and travel around rescuing survivors and killing zombies...
to survive i would armour plate a bus and travel around rescuing survivors and killing zombies...
Zombies, they're easier to defend against if you've got weapons and supplies and a safe location. It's easier to fight something you can see and shoot than it is to fight something that is invisible and gives you terminal cancer if you come into contact with it.
Unless of course this guys in charge of the zombies:
If this guy wants you dead, you are going to be f***ing dead.
Unless of course this guys in charge of the zombies:
If this guy wants you dead, you are going to be f***ing dead.
Nukes
If it is two years later then I would have survived the freezing nuclear winter and haven't died of radiation sickness so I probably won't in the future.
If it is two years later then I would have survived the freezing nuclear winter and haven't died of radiation sickness so I probably won't in the future.
That's not entirely true. Wind and rain can carry radiation, there are still places in Sweden that will spike a Geiger meter after Chernobyl. And a nuclear holocaust for me includes the bombing of every major city not just a few, which would mean everyone is fucked.ElephantGuts said:
On topic:
I would go with zombies. Feels more like a fighting chance than trying to survive for as long as possible when you're still going to die an agonizing death from radiation poisoning.
Zombie flesh is lethal to eat.Dr Ampersand said:
unless you have an open wound in your mouth, then you become a zombie.
ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE FTW!
Correction. Zombies are slow, so you would be "WALKING" from them.That Dude With A Face said:
zombie fighting would be kept to an absolute minimum, as if the zombie sights you, its moaning will alert other zombies, as will gunshots. a compound crossbow or silenced sniper are excellent tools for getting rid of the very few targets you would need to kill. chances are you can easily set up a nice facility (Prison with brick walls sorrounding it) and start growing some food. As long as you can keep yourself and possibly your other survivors sane, a zombie apocalypse would be far easier to survive than a nuclear war.